Alrighty then...

There is some recent (and more ancient) talk about updating our boards and/or selections. Let's start hashing out what the scope, requirements, input/output, controls and membership (and name?) should be.

Were you thinking along the lines that ENygma for when he & Tom set up the CartographersClub in 2016, or something different?

not quite sure what you mean by that? Only thing with CC I remember is cross-posting there when we started up our board design competition. 

I was specifically referring to the latest argument brought forward by Ozy:

I sometimes wonder if there is some way we could bring the collective wisdom of the map designers here to improve some of the boards.  There is one in particular that I think is 80-90% of the way to being a very fun board, but it has a fatal flaw that ruins about 50% of the games.  

I think the collective we (whomever that would be) could bring up ideas on boards that need to be updated/remedied/modified, hash out the details, then work with each others' strengths to improve them. Take the Antastic! discussion we recently had as an [unresolved] example. There were many wanting Return to Attack as a scenario. 

I think this could then progress into two things 1) how do we comb through all the boards and reorganize/sort so it's not as big a clusterF as it is now and 2) a Collaborative Guild account (closest we got was taking someone's 2ndary acct (or a new one) and using it as a test bed until we got the final product that would then be ex/imported into a 'real' account for release process. But I think the modification piece needs to be hashed out and dove into first. 

Weathertop - thanks for bringing this to it's own thread.  There is a lot to figure out.

I'm not sure of the logistics of actually making the changes.

Regarding the actual board modifications, I think we'd want broad consensus on any decisions, so maybe the first thing to figure out is what that 'broad consensus' looks like.

I hate to introduce classism to wargear, but I think it makes sense to have a group of sort of "WarGear Elders".   To qualify maybe you need to have been a member for at least a year and created at least 3 public boards, or played 300 public games.  Just making up some numbers...  For the purpose of a board under consideration, the board creator is always given the same status as an Elder.

Then I'm thinking any decision needs at least 4 elders to agree, and none to disagree.  This means if the board creator shows up they can automatically veto any decision.  I think in most cases we are talking about a situation where the board creator is absent.  If they are not absent, they might still be interested in the discussion and help improving the board, but this can all be less formal with the creator having basically complete control.  Every decision point is held open for at least a week to leave everyone time to vote/discuss/convince.

Then there is some process via which scenarios can be added.

#1) BOARD NOMINATION - A board is identified which has a serious playability flaw.   Anyone can nominate a board.  The nominator has to write at least a couple of paragraphs describing what problems the board has.  It's important to be respectful here, and realize that every board even if it has problems represents several hours of time from the creator

#2)  BOARD SELECTION - Decision point.  Will the board be considered for a new scenario?

#3) SCENARIO DISCUSSION - What is the issue with the board?  What are possible solutions?  What are possible side-effects of those solutions?  All things being equal we should make the fix that requires the smallest change. 

#4) SCENARIO SELECTION - DECISION POINT.  Which scenario(s) will be implemented.

#5) SCENARIO IMPLEMENTATION - not sure how to do this..  I guess interested parties volunteer to work on graphics changes, etc.  New scenarios should be required to have new images, which at the very least have a visual tag stating this scenario was not a work of the original creator.  About pages should be modified to mention the scenario added, changes made, and who worked on it.  Every map modified should get a wiki page with at least basic information and links to the discussion threads, etc.

#6) SCENARIO TESTING - I would suggest no less than 5 games must be played on the scenario.  Each Elder involved must play at least 3 games, or they can not vote on any more decisions.

#7) SCENARIO ACCEPTANCE - DECISION POINT - Elders who have played at least 3 games vote. 

#8) GO LIVE - whatever this entails.

Open Questions

1. Will Tom even let us do this?
2. How would this technically happen, can Tom give someone access to every board scenario list?  Does anyone already have this?
3. How many Scenarios max could we add?
4. What if the board doesn't have a real problem, but we have a "great idea" for a new scenario?
5. What to name the scenarios.  I suggest some standard prefix - "Community Scenario: XXX"  Is there a max scenario character limit?

I like a lot of these ideas.  You identified one concern that is tricky. A number of "retired" designers, or designers on sabbatical might take issue with their boards being "fixed."  I'm thinking that as long as the original board is preserved such that if the designer returns and feels strongly that they don't want the revisions, they can simply 'update' the new with the old.

If we're talking about a number of designers having access to these board, it will necessarily have to be detached from the other boards by the original designer. One way to accomplish this might be to create a community-run designer and copy and import boards that need updating.  Of course, you'd have to transfer all history, championship points, etc..   If for any reason the original designer shows up and complains, it can be decommissioned.

Are we assuming that all boards are "owned" by WarGear, and not by their designers?

Great points Ozy and M. Lots of thinking you put into that post Ozy and it's good to have that down in writing as a good basis. I concur that the original board should be preserved and perhaps a 'preferred scenario' created.

Do you think the easiest implementation is for Tom to open the CartographersClub (which only a certain amount of designers know the password to) for access to create scenarios on others' boards?

yay, someone jumped in! i didn't want to throw a ton of stuff. i'll post again when i get more than 5mins to check in on games (don't want to get skipped)

Maybe created at least 2 public boards?

Ozyman wrote:

Open Questions

1. Will Tom even let us do this?
2. How would this technically happen, can Tom give someone access to every board scenario list?  Does anyone already have this?

tom did give me the power to edit other people's boards. I have used it to fix missing borders and little things like that. I also updated the board images for those that didn't work with Flash.

Working with scenarios is harder - I haven't tried to create scenarios for other boards and actually don't think I can. My access goes to the board designer page, not the scenario page. I imagine tom could (and would) give some of us the ability to create scenarios.

FWIW I am in favor of this approach. Props to 'top to setting it up and Ozy for running with it.

Thank you guys. Your efforts are really appreciated.

I'm not a designer or a creator.. but I play a lot of maps and while not wanting to fundamentally changing any designs, would enjoy the added flexibility more modern scenario twists on classic maps would bring.

My only comment thus far is that requiring "any decision needs at least 4 elders to agree, and none to disagree" could lead to a lot of stalemates, i'd suggest leaving some wiggle room for dissent! 

Aiken Drumn wrote:

 i'd suggest leaving some wiggle room for dissent! 

I don't really have a strong opinion either way regarding a 'veto', but I might suggest that while the committee/"security council" is responsible for making the decisions and executing the changes, the process/dialog for each board be open to the public in a dedicated forum thread so that all voices are heard and ideas/suggestions considered. When designing my boards I have always invited a range of players, including top players, who are much stronger than me to test them out and offer suggestions before I submit them.

I agree with you Aiken.  I was trying to be conservative with any changes, but leaving it open to any dissent would mean even a single bad actor could torpedo any changes.

I do think it would be useful to have very clear rules and boundaries for how this plays out, but I'm not sure how to do it.  Maybe say we need 75% agreement?

M57 wrote:

Aiken Drumn wrote:

 i'd suggest leaving some wiggle room for dissent! 

I don't really have a strong opinion either way regarding a 'veto', but I might suggest that while the committee/"security council" is responsible for making the decisions and executing the changes, the process/dialog for each board be open to the public in a dedicated forum thread so that all voices are heard and ideas/suggestions considered. When designing my boards I have always invited a range of players, including top players, who are much stronger than me to test them out and offer suggestions before I submit them.

+1

The process should be as open and transparent as possible.

OK, finally got an evening to sit, so i can try to write up my previous thoughts and weave them thru what's mentioned here.

First, I’ve had some back and forth with Tom and he and I have worked out a few things; a few more will be decided here and I’ll take back to him for final approval. He was on vacay for a bit so it was kind of a slow back-and-forth.

I want this process to be totally open/transparent, and above all; respectful and civil. Remember, we’re all here to improve things. So keep this in mind (one of my mantra’s to get me thru professional life): Assume Good Intentions. I don’t believe there are any active folks here in the forums that go against that in the first place, but good to be reminded of it.

Second, requirements.

Round Table members:

My expectations are similar to Ozy's. The core needs to be senior and/or experienced and active members. I think a good place to start is with the two BRG (board revival and board review groups). I could provide my list of recommended names if we want, but I’d like to get some volunteers first. Some of the previous big hitters would get a notional seat at the table to chime in if they happened to visit (thinking Risky, Yertle, Nygma). Whichever board is up for discussion/vote the creator, if active, would fill a seat at the Table.

Board Nominations:

A board would be nominated in three tiers (and will be addressed in their hierarchy order): 1)  serious play-ability flaw, 2) annoyance/bug, 3) improvement/alternative(s). The rest of Ozy’s write-up is in line with what I was thinking.

Nomination Discussion:

I would expect that each nomination would have it’s own unique thread, open to public discourse. It would be during this discussion phase where choice on application to existing board or new one is created. 

Selection:

Once a nomination discussion closes in on a conclusion/resolution, the Round Table must decide if the nomination warrants addressing. Based on the discussion thread, the Round Table would vote for implementation of the conclusion/resolution.

Implementation:

If the vote result were to make a change to an existing board and the creator is active, then the creator can make the changes. If the creator cannot, or there is no active creator, then Tom will temporarily re-assign that board to the member to make the updates. After the updates go through the design and release process, then Tom will re-assign back to the original creator.

If the vote result were to make a new board, we would name it “Original: Scenarios!”, where ‘original’ would obviously be the original name of the board (or a shortened familiar name for it, if it were deemed too long). After a member does the work to take it through the design/release process, Tom would assign it to “Cartographer”, Tom’s site map-maker alias. (assuming the creator is not active, if active and they so desire, it would get put under their name).

Review/Approval:

This is part of the normal board release process; however, these boards would be held to higher standards. The final submittal would not be able to be started until proper play testing has concluded. The final submittal game would, by necessity, be filled with only those members of the Round Table that have fulfilled agreed upon requirements (I allude here to Ozy’s #6 & #7).

To address other comments:
M57: I agree with your comment about a non-active designer coming back and allowed a veto. I think that if the original created did come back with a veto to the [updated] original board, then it would get moved to a Scenario (if one existed, or one would be generated if not).

Ozy: I think once we start swirling into a congealed mass, I can write up a formal requirements like dossier. It would make it easier to present to Tom that way, and for us to post.

I think this is a great idea and agree with most of what's been put on the table so far. However:

If the vote result were to make a change to an existing board and the creator is active, then the creator can make the changes

I must object. If the board creator is active, it's disrespectful to hold open discussions about proposed improvements, put them to a vote, and then submit to the creator that they can make updates to their own board if they'd like, otherwise it'll be done for them. If the board creator is active, they can participate in improving their own board by taking suggestions and improving their own board!

I also feel strongly that a single vote by any qualified participant, whatever the qualification process is, should disqualify a suggestion from being implemented. I don't think the Round Table should be used to tinker. It should be used to make critical fixes/improvements that receive overwhelming support from the community.

thought i put that if they were active then they were part of the round table to begin with

i don't have a particularly strong opinion on needed 'no' votes; be it a single or more.

I also feel strongly that a single vote by any qualified participant, whatever the qualification process is, should disqualify a suggestion from being implemented. I don't think the Round Table should be used to tinker. It should be used to make critical fixes/improvements that receive overwhelming support from the community.

That is what I originally thought, but we've occasionally had "troublesome" personalities, who have been around long enough and played enough games to qualify as an elder.  I'm a little concerned that one person acting in bad faith could torpedo any improvements. 

Even without actively acting in bad faith, people have different opinions and priorities. I am concerned by 100% consensus requirement.  If we already have a minimum of 4 elders agreeing, then 80% seems fine.

Number of Elders voting / number allowed to dissent and still pass:

1. N/A
2. N/A
3. N/A
4. 0
5. 1
6. 1
7. 1
8. 1
9. 1
10. 2

Though your point is well taken ASM, I concur with Korrun and Ozy on ‘overwhelming’ support vs unanimous. And 80% seems like a good yardstick for overwhelming support.